At 12:38 7/18/00 +0100, Owen Roberts wrote:
>Also, will there be a standard DTD to perform interop against? Schemas
>aren't widely implemented in DOM world.
>We are just using the DTD out of the latest draft. (broken as it is
compared
>to the schema)
How do you mean broken? Kevin has pointed out one problem and alluded to
others, if you guys point them out, I'll be happy to fix them in the next
version. It's just that tweaking something in the spec, then in the actual
file, then validating the schema/DTD and then examples, find bug, reiterate,
can get hairy sometimes. <smile>
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0102.html
>Is anyone doing validation against schems??
I'm doing syntactical (not cryptographic) validation using [1].
[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/06/webdata/xsv
>We are supporting
>explictly namespace qualified elements in XML with no validation (although
>still based on DTD)
>or
>no namespace qualifications in XML with validation against said DTD.
I think for the purposes of Interop, it would make sense to create an
application DTD with Signature+application declarations by which we can test
enveloped and enveloping Signatures. Do you already have one?
People should feel free to send examples/DTDs to the list right now (and
attachments are decoded with their own URL which is convenient) as a start,
and then we can put a more formal document together (or if someone wants to
contribute that now, that's welcome too!)
_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/